Benchmark: Array.include vs Set.has

Script Preparation code:

var array = ['banana', 'sausage', 'jesus']
var s = new Set(array)

Tests:

Includes
array.includes('sausage')
Some
array.some(v => v === 'sausage')
Set
s.has('sausage')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Includes
Some
Set

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares the performance of three different approaches to check if an element exists in an array or set:

1. `array.includes()` (or `array.includes('sausage')` in this specific test case)
2. `some()`
3. `Set.has()` (or `s.has('sausage')` in this specific test case)

**Options compared:**

The three options being compared are:

* `includes()`: a method on arrays that checks if an element exists within the array.
* `some()`: a method on arrays that returns true as soon as at least one element in the array passes the test implemented by the provided function.
* `Set.has()`: a method on sets that checks if an element exists within the set.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **`array.includes()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Widely supported across browsers
		+ Fast, as it uses a binary search algorithm
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as efficient for very large arrays or sets
2. **`some()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can short-circuit if the array is empty or has no matching elements
		+ Can be more memory-efficient than `includes()` in some cases
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as widely supported across browsers (though this is improving)
		+ May have a slight performance hit due to the need to iterate over the array
3. **`Set.has()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Fast, as it uses a hash table internally for lookups
		+ Memory-efficient, as it only stores unique elements
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an underlying set object (which may not be supported in all browsers)
		+ May require more overhead to create the set and perform lookups

**Library usage:**

In this benchmark, a `Set` library is used to create a set from an array. The purpose of this library is to provide an efficient way to store unique elements.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark.

Now, let's look at the test cases and their results:

The test cases are designed to measure the performance of each approach:

* "Includes" measures the time it takes to use `array.includes()` with a specific element.
* "Some" measures the time it takes to use `some()` with a specific function.
* "Set" measures the time it takes to use `s.has()` with a specific element.

The latest benchmark result shows that:

* "Includes" is the fastest approach, followed closely by "Set".
* "Some" is the slowest of the three approaches.

Keep in mind that these results may vary depending on the specific browser, device platform, and operating system being used.

Related benchmarks:

Array.include vs Set.has (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Includes vs Some vs Set

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Includes

Some

Set

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):